MILBANK LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order -in -original No. KDL/Commr/19/De novo/2011 -12, dated 31 -1 -2012, in de novo proceedings. This is a second round of litigation. Earlier the issue was decided by Commissioner under Order -in -Original No. KDL/Commr/14/2001, dated 30 -4 -2001. On an appeal the issue was decided by the CESTAT vide order No. A/1352 to 1355/WZB/AHD/07 dated 15 -6 -2007 [2009 (234) E.L.T. 187 (T)] under which the penalties on all the appellants were set aside. In the case of appellant, the Tribunal vide order No. A/1356/WZB/AHD/2011, dated 18 -2 -2011, remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to decide the issue afresh, as per the directions in Para 5 of this order : -

(2.) THIS appeal has now again reached to the CESTAT in view of the order dated 31 -1 -2012 passed by Commissioner in the remand proceedings.

(3.) THE appellant argued that Ministry of Communication letter dated 27 -6 -1995, reproduced in Para 41 of order -in -original dated 31 -1 -2012, is not applicable to their case as they have not obtained the wireless equipment directly from any Ship Breaking Company. They obtained wireless equipment from M/s. A.T. Manufacturing Company and the same has been used in their vessel, which was a foreign going vessel. Therefore, the instructions detailed in the letter (at Para 41 of order -in -original) are not applicable. It was also argued that even if the goods are held to be liable to confiscation, then also option to redeem the goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 should have been given to them. They relied upon the judgment of Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kapadia Enterprise - 2013 (287) E.L.T. 255 (Guj.) and D.P. Singh - 2011 (270) E.L.T. 321 (Guj.).